Gee, poor telecom. They don’t get to outright fleece us altogether so I guess they’ll have to be sneakier. They’ll just have to add more ‘service charges’ on top of the one(s) they already have.

Supreme Court declines to take on net neutrality challenges, in blow to telecom industry

In a setback for industry groups, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced that it would not take up challenges to Obama-era "net neutrality" regulations that barred internet service providers from giving certain customers preferential treatment.

The Trump administration overturned those regulations last year, and since June they have not been in effect. But a range of challenges to the regulations remained before the court, brought by groups such as the United States Telecom Association, AT&T and The Internet & Television Association.

The court's decision will leave in effect a decision from a federal appeals court in Washington upholding the constitutionality of the regulations. That means the decision can be relied on for precedent in the future.

*

Three of the court's conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said they would have vacated that decision. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused themselves.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/05/supreme-court-declines-to-take-on-ne...

The telecoms can see the blowback from their greedy behavior and they’re doing everything they can do to fight it. They don’t always lose.

Telecom industry books major win in municipal-broadband fight

It's been a tough slog for cities and towns that want to build ultra-fast fiber internet networks to benefit residents, businesses and their local economies — so tough, in fact, that virtually none has managed to do it.

This month, a ruling by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority further diminished their odds.
PURA's May 9 decision, which may end up in state court, blocks municipalities from using their legally reserved space on utility poles to build fiber networks that offer broadband internet service to residents and businesses, including through contracts with third-party developers.

*

PURA's decision limits communities' use of pole space to local governmental activities like building networks for schools and other public buildings.

The ruling takes away what was once seen as the most economical and realistic avenue to forming municipal broadband networks in Connecticut, imperiling the hopes of communities desiring more affordable, gigabit-speed internet to spur economic growth, attract younger workers and close the "digital divide" for lower-income residents.

"We are very disappointed in the decision," said Consumer Counsel Elin Katz, a chief proponent of municipal broadband efforts. "It ignores the plain language of the statute, and by deciding that’s [mmunicipal gain] cannot be used by our cities and towns to provide broadband to those affected by the Digital Divide, denies our municipalities a tool provided by the legislature for just that purpose."

*

"This is a complication, a serious complication," said Kim Maxwell, president of Northwest Connect, the partnership that's been pursuing the estimated $100 million project since 2015. "PURA is denying us access to the future."

http://m.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20180521/PRINTEDITION/305179948/te...

I’ve been in favor of community-based Internet for a long time. Internet should be available to everyone. The tax payers paid for its development, why shouldn’t we benefit from our ‘investment’? It’s not right that the telecoms should have control of and reap all the benefits from the public airwaves and its means of communication.